My bet is Obama sends us into Iran if he wins the elections, if of course we don't go before then. At this point I'm not even thinking "if" but "when" and "why".
I'm sorry, but both of you are out of your pea picking minds! There is NO way the POTUS is going to authorize boots on the ground in Iran. I'd need a whole blog to explain the faulty reasoning in this blog and the sole comment. Suffice it to say that now the liberal and non-conservatives are the ones spreading the fear mongering that conservatives were accused of doing in the past.
I have to agree on CN's comment,I will say that if Obama is elected,he will send troops to Iran,I'm not so sure about before ,that's a wait and see because the election is on the line.
I'm not in complete agreement with Larry,I don't think that this is a one sided attraction to starting war,lets give it some time and see what President Obama will do (if elected) he has already shown his propensity to not shy away from sending troops,or talk thereof.
Democrats,or Republicans,take your pick either will commit troops .
Some interesting tidbits if you believe that only one side is interested in military involvement (a foot hold and why,for what reasons)
Some more information that the US is digging in
and not just in Afghanistan
Just before The Presidents speech on withdrawing some troops from Afghanistan, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a $14.2 million contract to a Turkish company to construct an eight-building barracks complex for 12,000 troops at Bagram Air Field. Completion date is scheduled for fall of 2013
No I don't see the attraction of a strong hold in other countries as strictly a one sided Political agenda,History will show,as the future it's about Power ,money,and our troops are the tool used .
Lives will continue to be lost,and at what price,in the name of a urgent threat to the United States ,where ,someone show me where.
It would be different if we personally were under attack,if our Country was in Harms way,I'm tired of wars being started ,our men and women dying ,innocent civilians dying, I will defend them ,but I will not defend these power hungry Politicians.
Please, please, please, please will you return our surveillance drone? Pretty please with sugar on top?
This post has been approved by The Party of Pro-Stupidity.
No way does Obama send troop to Iran. They would have to attack us somewhere in order for him to do that.
Did he send troops to North Korea? They made no secret of their own nuclear ambitions. Did he put boots on the ground in Libya, even when Republicans were calling for it.
Any action against Iran would have to be a U.N move.
I'll put money on that one...
Larry, I am glad you clarified your blog. Until you said President Obama would never send troops into Iran, I was of the opinion you thought ground combat was inevitable no matter who was in office. I see now you are back to your left wing normalcy. According to you, only the right are war mongerers.
History does not support you, my friend. Since WWII, (and I give a pass to Roosevelt because war was forced upon us), the Democrats are just as willing and able to start armed confrontations overseas as Republicans. Who was in charge when the Korean 'police action' erupted? Harry S. Truman, "the buck stops here" Democrat. Now, who was in charge when the truce was arranged and hostilities ceased? Dwight D. Eisenhower, of WWII fame. Is it not ironic that a Republican general who oversaw the defeat of the Axis powers of WWII was able to end the Korean fighting?
When Cubans attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro, who provided them with military aid and assistance? President John F. Kennedy. The Bay of Pigs fiasco might not have had such a disasterous end had the Democrat in charge not abandoned his democracy-seeking admirers. As a result, Nikita Kruschev, the Soviet leader, sought to exploit Kennedy's apparent weakness by placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. The showdown between the two powers avoided a nuclear holocaust only because Kruschev was convinced Kennedy would launch a nuclear strike on Russia.
When Communist expansion into Southeast Asia began, who sent advisors and military aid to South Vietnam? Once again, John F. Kennedy. Fresh off his victory over the Kremlin, Kennedy was certain the Communists would back down. His assasination prevented the world from knowing how far Kennedy would have gone to establish a democratic Vietnam.
President Johnson, another Democrat, took up where Kennedy left off. Fabricating the circumstances of an encounter with the North Vietnamese, Lyndon Johnson literally declared war and began a ten year battle that cost thousands of American and unknown numbers of Vietnamese lives. It took Eisenhower's former vice-president, Richard Nixon, to extracate the US from that horrible mess.
For all the current rhetoric about George Bush and Dick Chenney engineering the 2003 Iraq invasion, those on the left need to admit their hands are not as clean as they would have us believe. Democrats can have as much of a blood lust as they claim Republicans do.
The president per the constitution can not declare war only congress can.
We have not declared a real war since WW2 the rest have been police actions that turned into military engagements.
Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 along with Afghanistan are all called Military engagements authorized by Congress NOT WARS since war was never declared.
So we are not at war in Afghanistan we are in a authorized military engagement.
Your right midwestgirl
We have been in many "authorized military engagements" But by whom is the question.
Some authorized by Congress,some not.
Only Congress can "Declare War" however,the President can send in troops for use of force
without Congress authorization,this has been done many times,it's a matter of working around the Declaration Of War and simply being able to commit troops to solve any given problem when wanted.
I do not blame the Congress alone,nor the President alone,I blame everyone that has a hand in committing troops unnecessarily,and it doesn't come down to which Political Party it is.
There's enough blame to go around for everyone.
You are missing the point here. This isn't about a declared or undeclared war or police action. It is about US Forces thrown into battles by both sides. This is not an affliction solely of the conservatives or GOP, the left also has blood on their hands.
Definition of WAR
1a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile con*flict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed con*flict (3): state of war
b: the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete: weapons and equipment for war
(2)archaic: soldiers armed and equipped for war
2a: a state of hostility, con*flict, or antagonism
b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
(1) armed fighting between groups: a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles
(2) period of armed fighting: a period of armed con*flict between countries or groups
(3)methods of warfare: the techniques or the study of the techniques of armed con*flict
Encarta World English Dictionary
All of the military incursions the US has become involved in since WWII were approved by Congress, no one is saying any US President acted independently. The point is, Democratic Presidents and Congresses are just as culpable in engaging US troops in battle as the left wing would claim the Republican Presidents and Congresses have been.
US troops have paid the ultimate price in each of the con*flicts below:
Korea - 36,940
Vietnam - 58,272
Gulf War - 392
Iraq 2003 - 4,404
Afghanistan - 1,733
What has been gained? Korea is still divided 60 years later with US troops facing Communist forces along the DMZ. Vietnam has be unified under Communist control. Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi control and is again a soverign nation. Iraq has been freed of its oppresive ruler and can determine its own future. Afghanistan is no longer a haven for terrorist training grounds and no major terrorist attacks have been successful since 9/11. It seems to me the right has been far more successful than the left in these various world con*flicts. To claim that a GOP President in 2012 will result in further combat in Iran is just so much baloney.
Magnum, History is history, what I am saying is Obama will not arbitrarily send troops to Iran. After the debacle of Iraq and the nature of Afghanistan, I just don't think Obama would do what the Bush Administration did.
Please read my post again. In the first paragraph I agree with you that President Obama will not send troops into Iran. Where we disagree is that you seem to think someone from the GOP would.
That is not going to happen no matter who is president. There may be some type of response. It is too early to determine what that may be. The fact is, for all your rhetoric, none of the current batch of GOP hopefulls are advocating any 'war-party'.
44, I am just repeating what the current GOP candidates are on record as far as their comments regarding Iran. I don't think the people would put up with it, I'm just asking why those candidates say anything like that. I would assume it is to appeal further to their base, at least the Tea Party part of their base, which seems to be running things for the GOP right now.
To argue which party is more willing to utilize troops is a futile argument, both parties are complicit it supporting the industrial military complex. Are there more hawkish members on the right? Absolutely, but all of those who run our government are supporters of this economic system that has been established since WWII that freely uses American tax dollars to promote business and employment in this particular government run industry.
These past two "wars" have been rife with war profiteering by American corporations. It's also a diplomatic way of providing foreign aid to allied nations under the auspices of assisting in the war effort. Just look at the example that Roze presented where we had a Turkish company build a $14 million barracks. Or all of the construction that took place in Iraq. its a way for businesses, American owned, or from those allied with us to have access to free flowing tax dollars with the understanding that results are less of an objective since its in a war zone, and results are hard to come by.
The whole idea of blaming a party for starting wars is a distraction to keep people arguing with each other and not with those who have their eye on keeping the money flowing. What has been gained in Korea? For the average citizen, nothing, but for corporations who profit off of con*flect, 60 years of a constant revenue str*eam. What was it any of our business if Iraq flexed its muscle and decided to regain land that was taken from them by Western Powers after WWI and presented to a family that was allied with those Western powers to form Kuwait? Our government did what they do to make it sound as if we had a moral obligation, but it was about spending tax dollars and protecting a petroleum revenue st*ream.
Bull is a supporter of this economic system, he tries to bring reason to the actions by stating that Congress approved these actions of war, but they did not fill their Constitutional obligation to declare war, they just approved of spending the money to have military excursions at our expense. The principles of our founders was one of focusing on this nation and of protecting it. They believed that we should have open commerce with foreign nations, but we had no business in their politics. That notion has been lost on those who have found a way to continually promote fear in order to profit.
Its both sides, which is why we need another side. It doesnt matter which party a Congressman is in, they bring home government money and jobs associated with military spending, they receive campaign money from lobbiests from the defense industry, why would they kill the goose that lays the golden egg? This President is no different than any other. The beast is bigger than they are, and it controls them and not the other way around. Some believe that this industrial war complex conspired to assinate JFK because he wanted to pull out of Vietnam. Its just a conspiracy, but when you have an open mind, you have to look at all possiblities. If you were a new President, and you are pressured by those who profit from this beast, and the remind you of the outcome of JFK's term, you may be apprehensive of going in a different direction.... I'm just saying...
The following link is to one of the great Presidential speeches of the 20th century, which is known as the Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961.
In it he states things as:
"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would in*flict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad."
"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel."
"But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world con*flicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total in*fluence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted in*fluence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government."
"It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
:Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield."
"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight."
Idk how it got moved up, nobody moved it, Sovereign only posted "after it appeared", nevertheless its a timely blog considering what the President had to say and the possibility of war's, or rumors of it
will forever be a subject we'll be discussing (until such a day comes we mind our own business) and war's no longer are profitable to keep that big " Machine " well oiled an running
@ Rozemist and TheSovereign...
I'm not saying it is irrelevant. I just wanted to know what - if anything - triggered bringing it back up.
Anyone should feel free to comment on any article they wish regardless of how long ago the item was posted.
I think it's completely relevant considering the U.S. senate passed a resolution saying that if Iran gets to the point where it can produce a nuclear weapon(Not if it does but if it can produce it) we would prevent them from doing so(How do we actually do this, obviously with explosives). There was ONE person who voted against the resolution, REPUBLICAN Senator Rand Paul.
Iran with a nuclear weapon is NOT an option. Just because other countries have nuclear capability, it does not mean that all should. Some nation states, like spoiled children, need a strong parent to ensure they don't do something stupid and hurt themselves or others.
It is clear that Iran is a threat to not only their immediate neighbors but to the entire civilized world. A country that sponsors terror and terrorists that have no qualms about blowing themselves to smithereens while massacring innocent people would have no problem developing and using a nuclear device.
The Israeli Prime Minister's speech at the UN made the case against a nuclear armed Iran better than anyone. Iran threatens the world without a weapon, imagine their threats and actions if they had one. In this instance, in this situation, reaction is too late. There has to be a worldwide supported proactive stance to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear device. There is no other option.
This is just too freakin hypocritical you know that? This was the same kind of bs with Iraq, the same type of bs with NK, etc. you want to talk about childish nations that need a good spanking look no further than the U.S. and Israel. Sponsors terrorists and terror? Kind of like the US gov sponsored terrorist attacks within Cuba, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Colombia, and the list goes on and on. And you wonder why people oppose the US like Iran does! Why might they even think about getting nuclear weapons! It probably has nothing to do with the fact that we've tried over and over and explicitly repeat over and over that we want the Iranian government gone! We continually bully countries like Iran and when they stand up instead of bowing down to their imperialist masters they're threatened over and over again with foreign invasion. It's especially funny to make the statement you did in light of the bombings of Iranian scientists.
Now who's the barbarian that pushes everybody, not just its neighbors, around, has nuclear capabilities and has used them, invades numerous countries on false premises and straight up lies! Oh I forgot, we're the "civilized" ones, they're the barbarians. Imperialism has always thrived off of racism, the idea that the white man has to step in and civilize other people with brute force because that's all they understand because they're barbarians. And the cycle will forever continue, a country won't want to follow along with the imperialist exploitation, they will rebel against the Empire, and our leaders will tell us that they have to be crushed because they don't want to lick the bottom of our shoes anymore.
So, tell us how you REALLY feel? ;)
You certainly have a diverse opinion. We are not the ones who proclaim on a daily basis that Israel has no right to exist. We are not the ones who threaten to wipe Israel off the map. We are not the ones spawning terrorists who murder innocent people by suicide bombing.
Iran has every right to exist. It has every right to whatever government its people choose to endure. It does not have the right to threaten the rest of the world with nuclear devastation.
You call it imperialism... You condemn the past actions of our government. Without the United States and its past actions, our world would already be a dark and terrible place. Through our efforts with the world community Adolf Hitler never succeeded with his Third Reich. Japan's military leaders were contained and civilian leadership restored. World domination by the Soviet Union was prevented. We've made some mistakes, and we will make more in the future. But having lived through most of the post WWII era, I have seen first hand what people like you complain about. You have the luxury of condemning the nation and its leaders... enjoy it because had we not stood up to the evils in this world, you wouldn't be able to enjoy the freedom you do today. So read your manifesto, wear your Che Guevara T-shirt, and rag on the USA. You have that right.
God help us if Iran ever gets a nuclear weapon capability. I wonder what your opinion will be if a nuke is ever set off in Jerusalem, Europe, or New York City?
"World domination by the Soviet Union was prevented."
That's right Bull153!!! Ronald Reagans resolve alone destroyed the Soviet Union and out collective imaginary world domination plots!
Tell us again how the Soviets saw Reagan get elected and the collectively agreed they should all just quit and join the circus, or, whatever it is you imagined happened ...
Keep us laughing Bull153! You sure do have a WILD imagination!
I don't think Israel in its current state has the "right to exist". No state has the right to exist but especially not a state which is based on the concept of a certain race being supreme over others, a state which ethnically cleanses a population. You want to talk about getting wiped off the map, check a map of Israeli and Palestinian territories. So while you condemn strong rhetoric(and that's what it is, baseless attacks, has NK wiped SK off the map yet, Pakistan wiped India off the map) against a nation getting wiped off the map you fully support a campaign of wiping people off the map that Iran is opposing. It's not ethnically cleansing when Israel does it why? They look white? They dress modern(some of them). The language of the Empire is do hypocritical it's beyond disbelief. Iran has no "right to threaten other nations" but the US does? Not only to threaten but to actually go and kill and invade?
I don't know if the US Is supporting suicide bombers(wouldn't surprise me as we just took a group off the terrorist watch list who conveniently only attacks Iran) but there are much worse things than a suicide bomber. Haven't you seen the Shock and Awe bombing campaign? What was that for? Oh yeah, the whole point of that was to scare the crap out of Iraqi people so they wouldn't fight back, aka terrorism. Pakistanis live in constant fear and terror not knowing when or where the drone that flies over their head constantly will drop a bomb. While you decry funding of terrorists by Iran you support a government that funded whole armies that used rape as a weapon. A government that supported death squads who ransacked entire villages. Our government is supporting rebels in Syria who themselves use terrorist tactics! But you shake it off lightly, mistakes are made. No, you continue to not learn from them because you support the same crap. These aren't mistakes either, they're part and parcel of the US and it's place in the capitalist system.
Oh we fought Hitler, so did the Soviet Union. Oh we fought against Japan, so did Mao.
I'm not looking for the lesser of two evils bull, I'm looking to destroy evil.
Again, it is suicide for any nation to use nuclear weapons. If Iran was insane enough to use it anywhere, the West would rain down enough bombs to eliminate any reminder that the country existed in the first place.
Such fear coming from a former military man. I am not feeling so secure any more knowing that these type of weak kneed fearful types are in our military.
Where is the fear mongering about N. Korea and their potential to hit their sworn enemy, the United States with a nuclear weapon? I guess FoxNews isn't featuring this notion on their propaganda channel.
C_N puts reality in perspective, and Bull distorts reality with fear.
You really don't understand the concept of mutually assured destruction, do you? Iran IS insane enough to use a nuclear weapon. The response, unlike the oft-repeated cold war doomsday scenario of the USSR and the USA trading hundreds of nukes, would not be "...the west raining down enough bombs" to obliterate Iran.
The detonation of one device means the war is over. You stop the war by never letting it start. We have to be right 100% of the time, they only need to be right once. A nuclear response will just create more worldwide death and destruction. Look what has happened with peacetime nuclear incidents like Chernobyl and the Japanese Tsunami. Neither the US or any other nuclear armed country wants to add to the destruction. Nukes have always been and always be deterrence. The war is lost if ANYONE uses a nuke.
You are out of your mind if you are not concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear device. The threat isn't as much Iran launching a missile as it is their providing a device to a terrorist group. They get the nuclear explosion in Israel or New York and none of the blame. If you are not fearful of that, your brain cells have stopped working.
North Korea is controlled by the Chinese. Do you really think Peking will let the North Koreans launch a nuke at their 'cash cow'? That would be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Contrary to popular belief, North Korea is NOT an autonomous nation.
Fox News has nothing to do with it. Reality and common sense does. An understanding of the real world would help you, too.
"No state has the right to exist..." What do you mean by 'no state has a right to exist'? Oh, that is right, you're all about that socialist thing where everyone is equal and everyone owns everything... right!
Don't accuse the Israelis of ethnic cleansing when they themselves have suffered horrifically. Or are you one of those who deny the holocaust? The Israelis were there for thousands of years, it is their homeland. You want to talk ethnic cleansing? Russia... Bosnia... Serbia... Iraq... Syria... Somalia... to name some. Genocide and ethnic cleansing has occurred for thousands of years. It was tragic in the past and it will never be acceptable. I don't see the Israelis committing ethnic cleansing.
You are entitled to your perception of the threat Iran is posing. Not everyone shares your view. North Korea is being held in check by China. You better believe if the masters in Peking weren't pulling the strings there would have been a bloodbath there years ago. The North Koreans constantly strive to set off an international incident that would trigger a response... Only the deterrent effect of the US support of South Korea and Chinese control in the North are keeping the status quo.
Shock an awe is a military tactic and was used for military advantage. The reason was to disable the Iraqi air defense, command and control facilities, and infrastructure. War is not a nice thing, the objective is to quickly and savagely defeat your opponent. There is nothing chivalrous or noble about it.
If Pakistanis fear the drones, then get the terrorists out of their country. Simple solution. No terrorist cells and training grounds - no drones. The rest of your argument is unsubstantiated. The US doesn't condone or sponsor rape or death squads. Our own troops have been accused of murder and rape - some troops have been convicted and imprisoned. Keeping the world safe is not always a nice clean and neat endeavor. If we are so bad and so evil... what would you do about it?
We agree on one thing...I also want to destroy evil. I've spend most of my life actually doing so while others just talk about it.
"Iran IS insane enough to use a nuclear weapon."
Odd how you have so often in the past said others don't have the ability to read peoples' minds; when did you develop that ability? I recall people like YOU saying the EXACT SAME THING about Saddam.
"The detonation of one device means the war is over."
I thought this Bull153 claims to have lived through WW2. How many "devices" did it take for that war to be over?
"You better believe if the masters in Peking weren't pulling the strings there would have been a bloodbath there years ago."
There you go AGAIN Bull153 suggesting your WILD IMAGINATION is unquestionable reality. By Bull153's idiotic logic here, there shouldn't be an issue over the Senkaku Islands.
"Reality and common sense does. An understanding of the real world would help you, too."
No Bull153m NOTHING you posted is "common sense" it all sounds like a pile of baseless fear mongering to me.
The world needs more "common sense" and less idiotic fear mongering. It is also incredibly hypocritical for Bull153 to so often chide people for making unfounded sweeping comments when he seems to do nothing but that for two straight comments here. Regardless, I think the following says it all about Bull153:
" Keeping the world safe is not always a nice clean and neat endeavor "
That tells it all. A disgusting comment if I have ever seen one. It really does tell volumes about the demented worldview of the author all in one single sentence. He feels that the atrocities committed by US Troops is justifiable because we are inherently "right" and "good." That is in no way "the real world."
Bull153 clearly has watched too much Fox. Fox news and Fox broadcasting of the old "24" show. Seems Bull153 has confused fiction and reality so badly he is now having trouble discerning the two.
Again, you are WRONG!!
"The Israelis were there for thousands of years, it is their homeland."
I thought you lived through WW? If you did - and were actually paying attention - you would know that Israel has only existed since May 15th, 1948. That would be SIXTY-FOUR (64) years and not "thousands" as you claim.
Also, if you actually knew history, you would know that there was a full Palestinian state that was more or less destroyed after the British halted the British Mandate for Palestine after the Ottoman collapse post WW1. The Jewish people used the sympathy of the atrocities of the holocaust to convince world leaders to establish - and protect - a new Jewish state in Palestine.
Israel was even recently - 1900's - called Southern Syria!!
Again Bull153, you are great with melodrama and not so great with facts. Sixty four years is not exactly a thousand ...
"Iran IS insane enough to use a nuclear weapon." - I guess we can apply the same hyperbole and say that any potential Conservative President, just by their Conservative values is insane enough to use a nuclear weapon any time he fears, which is always. Its as much of a fact as what you stated.
Now, lets be real, you only presented a non-credible opinion, and really it is an extreme one at that, but then, look who its coming from. That explains itself.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."
"[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."- John Quincy Adams
The above post shows there are American principles, and then there are Conservative principles, and the two will never be as one.
Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish.
John Quincy Adams
'We Will Never Have... Smart People On Our Side' - Rick Santorum
Seems Friendo is conveniently forgetting the later President's eight years and simliar assumptions about Iraq. Odd how he can remember SIXTY years ago but has such a difficult time with more modern events ...
What I mean by no state has the right to exist is no state has any "right" to existence. States come and go, are destroyed, unified, merged, overthrown(if every state has a right to exist why do we constantly take away that right and who made us judge and executioner?), etc, throughout history. The State itself is just the armed organization of one class over another therefore it can and will be destroyed by the communist revolution. The United States has a right to exist as long as its not destroyed at which point the State being the USA does not exist.
No I'm not a Holocaust denier, I just don't see the Holocaust as an excuse to ok ethnic cleansing. I've been through so much, my people survived all these genocidal regimes, let's take over this land and kick the original inhabitants out. Were there Jews who lived there for thousands of years? Yes. Did they make a majority of the population? No. Were there Palestinians that lived there for thousands of years? Yes. Were they a majority? Yes. Israel's policy has been one that presupposes Israeli supremacy, has been one of trying to force out the occupants of the land that are not Jewish.
Shock and awe is a military tactic just like terrorism is a military tactic. They're actually one and the same, I think it did a very good job too. It's intimidation, infrastructure, etc, when it's coming from the mouths of the Empire but it's terrorism when resistance fighters blow up a bridge or an enemy's checkpoint, etc. When our tons of bombs are ripping through the flesh of children it's the nastiness of war, when it's an American soldier who is payed to fight its a national tradegy when he dies. You don't see any contradictions, any discrepancies? Oh that's probably because of that cancer called nationalism, a cancer that says American lives are worth more than Iranian lives, than Iraqi lives, than Palestinian lives, than Pakistani lives. Pakistanis don't want terrorists in their country, so let's Gtfo.
We don't sponsor rape or death squads, that's funny. So when the Guatemalan military was waging a ruthless terrorist campaign of rape, torture, and murder we weren't funding them? We were, and there was even a case where an American citizen was raped and forced to kill another person by these terrorists before they realized she was American and Hillary Clinton even admitted to her that the person in this secret prison who was speaking English to a commander was a CIA agent. We fully supported Pinochet as he used rape and murder as a weapon against opposition(some even forced to commit incestuous acts and bestiality). Our CIA gave a list of thousands of communists in Indonesia to the dictator Suharto and looked the other way as thousands of people were slaughtered by the regime. Of course we fully supported them too. I could go on and on across every continent if you want me to.
I appreciate your comments even though I don't agree with most of them. You have clarified your statements, thank you.
And what do I get in response? A cowardly "you expressed yourself, good job" in place of an actual rebuttal. You don't agree with it? Why not? Please show me where or stfu with your imperialist war mongering, your apologist hypocrisy of the treatment of people outside of the U.S., etc. Is this your schtick? Make a bunch of claims and then don't back it up when it's criticized, just say that it's their opinion when you've run out of things to say?
You don't want a response, you want an argument. I've already answered your points, YOU are the one rebutting what I said, not the other way around. I made my point, defended it, and you object. Both our points of view are out there. Cowardly? Not hardly!
Don't back it up? I have...it is just you won't accept an opposing point of view. That's fine... but don't tell me to shut the f--k up, you ignorant little communist. You quote some guerrilla's manifesto as if it is some glorious proof of how good Socialism and Communism are. BS! You are entitled to your opinion, just don't cry foul when others choose not to buy into it.
You want a response, OK, genius, here's your point by point response.
Every state has a right to exist - the fact that they don't simply means someone bigger and stronger has come along. What was once the Roman Empire is now individual countries. Same with the Ottoman Empire and the USSR. History changes things, but not a nation's right to exist. What state has the US taken away their right to exist? We invaded Iraq, it has its own government. We invaded Afghanistan, it is a sovereign nation. Ask Great Britain if the US does not have a right to exist!
There is NO evidence that the Holocaust is being used as an excuse for ethnic cleansing. The UN mandates created an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, but the Arab world decided that wasn't good enough and tried to wipe out Israel. They have been trying every since. Arabs have violently resisted any attempts at a peaceful solution, so Israel continues to use necessary force to maintain its sovereignty.
I addressed shock and awe. If terrorists had the capability they would be dropping tons of bombs on children or using a nuke. The US military has always tried to limit collateral damage but in war people, including innocent people, die. I'd rather drop bombs in Iran than have to drop bombs in California. I do agree on one point - I don't want US troops in Pakistan any more than they want us there. So, get rid of the terrorists and the US will get rid of its drones.
We do not sponsor rape or death squads, that is ludicrous. We support other governments, but we do not condone or sponsor atrocities. We hold our people accountable when they commit them - we did in Vietnam, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Being a CIA agent does not equate to our government sponsoring rape and murder. You go on and believe all the propaganda you wish. We do not control every aspect of every government we supply foreign aid to.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
It is clear the only "opinion" that is actually Bull153's is his bigotry and prejudice.
"You don't want a response, you want an argument. "
There Bull153 goes again with his "mind reading" after he tells people so often to not say what he is thinking, Bull153 has no problem doing the same to others.
What is that called? HYPOCRISY!!!
Here is a quote from Bull153 a few days ago:
"... it is indeed 'unfortunate that some are unable to express disagreement with the perspective of others without resorting to an ambush of snide comments and insults. Sad, really, that some must tear others down to build themselves up.'"
Here is Bull153 TODAY:
"shut the f--k up, you ignorant little communist."
Bull153 has a MAJOR problem of saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite.
Hello crimriddendump, In the first quote that you attribute to Bull153, the majority of the words are mine, except for the "it is indeed" part. You left off the beginning where he is stating his agreement with me. In the latter quote, you left out an important segment which is, "That's fine...but don't tell me to shut the f--k up, you ignorant little communist". Bull153 was actually responding to Capitalists_Nightmare's post where he says, "Please show me where or stfu with your imperialist war mongering, your apologist hypocrisy of the treatment of people outside the U.S., etc." I understand what CN was striving for - he wanted an honest point-by-point rebuttal rather than the weaker 'You are entitled to your opinion' response which does not further the discussion. But it is unfair for you to use a partial quote from Bull153 to mislead readers into thinking that it was Bull153 who was using the "stfu" retort. Crimeriddendump, you have a VERY valid point about Bull153's on-line behavior but you don't need to twist words or delete sections to underscore your contention. Just quoting the "you ignorant little communist" part which IS an accurate quote, is enough to validate your point about a lack of civility in Bull153's posts. It is extremely difficult to remain respectful and civil when one is not treated in the same manner, but it is important to do so, nonetheless. I am certainly getting tired of all the name-calling and baiting that is going on in this forum. It detracts from some really interesting and complex issues. My husband and I (neither of us being Socialists nor Communists) share Capitalists_Nightmare's concerns and discomfort with some of America's foreign policy embroilment, especially in the Middle East. We think it is morally indefensible to declare that WE can have nuclear weapons, and the countries WE like or WE deem as responsible can have them, but not some other countries who could be a threat to us, either now or in the future. Of course we do not want to see a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, but it is hard to watch our country set itself up as one of the arbitrators of who can or can't develop this technology. Could we (regardless of who is involved) have a debate or discussion on this topic without it degrading into personal slurs and insults, but instead remain on a point-counterpoint level? Sincerely, Karen
Hoffman, the very best you can do is to condemn other's for their comments WHICH YOU INTENTIONALLY DISTORT WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE MORPHED THEIR ORIGINAL MEANING BECAUSE YOU HAVE LEFT WINGISHLY TAKEN THEM OUT OF CONTEXT?
I was not trying to distort, I was trying to put out there that Bull153 used an even MORE VULGAR response than the original. Sorry if that was not made clear.
The point as you put it is still very, very valid. I'm sorry if not including the "don't tell me to" detracted from the issue here of pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of a particular poster.
Again, my fault. I was not trying to point out anything other than the rampant hypocrisy of a poster. I retract my original quoted text and now substitute "you ignorant little communist" for the original. If these people find it is OK for Mitt Romney to retroactively change his position, I'm sure they would perfectly OK if I did the same here. That is, unless they are major hypocrites ...
Sorry for the confusion.
I'll repost my corrected comment below:
Here is a quote from Bull153 a few days ago:
"... it is indeed 'unfortunate that some are unable to express disagreement with the perspective of others without resorting to an ambush of snide comments and insults. Sad, really, that some must tear others down to build themselves up.'"
Here is Bull153 TODAY:
"you ignorant little communist."
Bull153 has a MAJOR problem of saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite.
Hope that helps clarify. Again, sorry for the confusion.
I'm in total agreement with you,the name calling makes it difficult to be able to post a comment to some very important topics,as a matter of fact I normally try to stay away from the blogs that deteriorate to this now.
I don't see the reason for posting what Bull153 said to CN on every blog,and this is a question directed to crimeriddendump .
I read it,everyone has read it,I wish we could move on because the issue that CN brought up is worth a discussion.
I think that what Bull153 called CN was in very poor taste,he often will comment that he feels he himself is being ridiculed and treated poorly in the forum ,and yet on the other hand he willingly participates in said behavior,and even will at times instigate it.
You put yourself on shaky ground when you behave in the same manner as the very thing you complain about.
I also have some strong concerns about our involvement in other Countries,as I have said before the United States should not be in the position of Policing the world.
We are sitting down rules for other Countries that we don't even follow ourselves.
It's a double standard.
Hopefully this is a topic to be further discussed here without the verbal insults flying right and left.
I see no reason why disagreements on issues must turn into a school yard fight.
Good question. Since there is clearly no moderation here, we all must ban together ourselves and create our own standards for what is right and what is wrong. I think anyone would I find the type of horrific name calling and foul language displayed by a particular poster to be wrong on almost every level.
Personally, I was surprised there was not more offense at the pejorative nomenclature used by a poster to describe people of Jewish faith at the same time as feigning offense at a basic picture. I refuse to let this go as unnoticed - and uncorrected - as that and his other many transgressions.
I agree, we should be able to have basic, adult conversations without insults or foul language. It does not help anything when someone who claims want to help is the major source of the problem.
crimeriddendump, in light of your own online behavior the only thing we readers gain from your above comments is your genuine lack of credibility to broach the subject. Please allow someone with credibility the task of sincerely addressing the issue of civil discourse within these online forums.
I think anyone would find the type of horrific distortion of anothers's posted comments via intentionally and unjustly reposting them OUT OF CONTEXT, displayed by YOU to be wrong on almost every level.
I refuse to let this go as unnoticed - and uncorrected - as that and YOUR other many transgressions.
I made a mistake and was not clear with my intention of phrasing the quote the way I did. I apologized and corrected it; something you/Bull153 NEVER do.
If admitting when you made a mistake and fixing it shows a lack of credibility in your mind, then I'm glad you find me void of it.
You know it's a sad day when you have to insult the person to get a response to what I said...I guess that works though, just call Bull a coward and he'll actually respond. Yes I said what I said in hopes that Bull would get mad and actually respond and keep the discussion going, so I don't mind that he said stfu just like I did or called me ignorant. Thought I'd make that clear, I'll respond fully when I'm off work, I'm currently taking my half :)
Hello rozemist, Thank you for your take on this subject. I am interested in reading Capitalists_Nightmare's further response. Even when I don't agree with him, his comments provoke me to examine my own perceptions and ideas on a topic more fully, which I appreciate. By the way, I just checked my messages a couple of days ago, so I answered your message then. I know you sent it close to a month ago! I am very remiss at checking for personal messages because I forget that this is an option on the on-line forum. So sorry for the delay in response. Sincerely, Karen
I just got your message,don't worry about the time of reply you know I often forget we even have the message option as well.
I only checked it once since I sent you the mail,so that shows how often I use the feature.
I think Capitalist has hit on a good subject,and like you hope he will go further into it.
Bull what kind of right exists that can easily be taken away? Like most everything about bourgeois society it talks a tough game about rights but when it comes down to it these things are just privileges. The State of the U.S. exists not because it has any inherent right to exist but because forces from the inside/outside do no destroy it. A State is not the same thing as a nation. In the most simplistic terms of describing it the State is an apparatus made up of a bureaucracy and it's armed backup(That being the military, the police, etc). So when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq were we respecting their State's "right" to exist? No, in both cases we tried our best to destroy the State apparatus, therein lies the difficulties we faced after the occupation. In Afghanistan the State apparatus was made almost completely out of the Taliban so we have to create a new State, a new bureaucracy and military anew. What do we have in place now? A corrupt government and a ragtag team of drug addicted backers with little training, both of which seem to be turning against us themselves! In Iraq? The same thing(Though I don't think the Iraqi military has as much drugs in it as Afghanistan's does). Except we didn't have to completely destroy the bureaucracy and military apparatus in Iraq, we stupidly did to push a neo-*liberal agenda(Firing tens of thousands of low-level soldiers was almost the stupidest policy ever followed in Iraq). And I would hardly believe you put the same line forward, every State having the right to exist, if there was ever a socialist revolution in the U.S.(or anywhere in the world really as it seems you support our foreign policy, those States defin*itely had no right to exist according to the U.S.).
There is no evidence that the Holocaust is being used as an excuse to Israeli crimes? YOU JUST USED IT AS AN EXCUSE! What do you say in response to my accusation of ethnic cleansing? You say not to accuse them of that because of the Holocaust! Yeah the Holocaust was bad, that doesn't give anybody a green light to do bad stuff. As Norman Fink*lestein said, his mother and father survived Dachau and Auschwitz, using their struggles to justify Israeli policy is just an in*sult to their memory. The ethnic cleansing didn't start when Israel was declared a State and that's not where the conf*lict began. It began before Israel was even a State but only in the wake of a massive campaign of violence which led to more than 100,000 Palestinians fleeing to other countries. And if you haven't seen a map of Israeli and Palestinian territory, the policy of kicking the Palestinians out has only increased. Now where were you when the Palestinians went to the UN asking for recognition of a State? Were you saying their right to a State to exist must be upheld? Where were you when Hamas said they would come to the table? Because Israel was just taking over more territory.
If terrorists had the capability yada yada yada, I guess that what if excuses our terrorism just like the holocaust excuses Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing. There's always some excuse, but the difference is we're doing it while them doing it is entirely held on a hypothetical plane of existence. They don't have airplanes and tanks, the best they could do was hijack a plane. You don't want us in Pakistan so get rid of the terrorists? Maybe you don't understand why terrorist groups are thriving. Have you ever wondered why, for example, fundamentalist Islam thrives in areas most under the heel of imperialist countries? Don't you understand our policy is the thing thing which creates terrorists? When you're killing people and shrugging off thousands of innocent people dead as a sort of whatever it's part of war a Pakistani who lost a child, a Yemeni who lost an uncle, a country being occupied, etc, don't see it that way. Whatever, we're going to kill innocent civilians, it happens. WHY DO ALL YOU PEOPLE HATE US SO MUCH! Seriously?
Why are these assertions ludicrous? Because we're the great U.S.A.? We just CAN'T do stuff like that because we're America! Hahaha, wake up dude. We help ruthless dictators overthrow governments, give them full support, provide them with military training(look up the School of the Americas, training manuals that were given to several "students" contain passages advocating targeting citizens, executions, torture, among other things. And then people like you act all surprised when they actually do it and say that we don't support it), provide them with neo-liberal stooges to right their laws, fund their military, etc, and also fund guerrilla movements(Let's not forget the Contra scandal). I mean what do you think our government was thinking when it gave a brutal dictator, who had already killed it's own people and tortured them, the names of thousands of opposition supporters? What did we do to stop it? There were no sanctions. When the Guatemalan military was throwing headless bodies in ditches? We didn't stop our policy. When we helped Pinochet in a coup where he, on day one, publicly killed and tortured hundreds of people to put fear in Chileans what did we do? We celebrate the bringing back of freedom! And you talk about fighting terrorism, what about terrorist groups who fight against our enemies? We have people in Posada in the U.S. who can easily be prosecuted on terrorism charges. He was responsible for numerous terrorist bombings against Cuba, including bombing a civilian plane. Why don't we arrest these terrorists? Oh yeah, the CIA trained him how to create bombs!